Saying they would allow it and putting it in writing are very different things though.
I'll go back to my work example. I verbally allowed my employees half days every Friday IF they still managed to complete their work, which some abused. I held a meeting telling them I had to take them away. It wasn't in any type of contract, just an agreement that I had with my department. The LaRoche thing seems no different to me.
From the perspective of players that want to continue working and trust the white sox upper management it will make absolutely no difference but...
no it's not, not when a written contract existed. And the players union is not going to get into the business of enforcing or endorsing their players get into these kinds of verbal, secondary agreements with players. Everything should be in the written contract. LaRoche didn't have a leg to stand on if he tried to take it in that direction, no more than Josh Beckett and Jon Lester had a a "verbal arrangement" to drink beer and eat chicken in the club house.
laws very from state to state but a written contract doesn't nullify any verbal contract unless stated in the written contract. You can use verbal contracts to modify signed written contracts they are just a bitch to prove because the side that is trying to adhire to the original contract, if they are intelligent at all, won't admit that they made a verbal agreement thus it becomes he said she said which typically fails to show proof of the verbal contract. If however he can prove that they made such an agreement in order for him to sign (which has been shown by the parties involved admiring to such a thing) it is still technically just as valid as the written contract(assuming the written contract doesn't state that oral agreements are not applicable to the contract). It's unlikely it would ever hold up in a court of law since most law bodies don't actually treat verbal contracts very well despite laws that say that they are legally binding (since they are hard to prove and not usually worth the effort. Most people know if you want a contract to stick do it in writing), but whether it's absolutely legally binding or not makes no difference.
If they said he is allowed there and that was the terms of him signing, they shouldn't change it. It sends a bad message and shows that the white sox upper management is absolute scum.
and I say this as a life long white sox fan that thinks the kid has absolutely no real business being there and that the original terms that the kid can be there are ridiculous. It makes no difference, unless there was a law chance that changed the legality of the verbal agreement there is no good reason to change things now, especially when there is only one more season of the contract left.
actually no, if you have a verbal understanding but then sign a contract, the written contract typically "merges" the prior understandings into the written document. most corporations include explicit language stating that this is case.
additionally, when you sue for breach of a contract, the court will typically not admit evidence of the verbal understanding unless the written contract is unclear.
i hate situations like this. everyone with an opinion on the proper outcome becomes a simultaneous expert on the things involved - here contract law, home school, truancy laws, special needs, etc. As a lawyer and parent of kids with special needs who are home schooled, i'll be glad to see this particular news item go away.
I go into it more in my post here, and in this case the phrase legally binding is weird, as by the basic letter of the law it isn't that different (the big difference is written proves itself which is why it holds up, verbal doesn't which is why it rarely does), but getting a court to side with you is a completely different story and unlikely to happen. Also it is possible the white sox have language in there for such a situation (in fact I would be surprised if they don't have a line in there saying that it can't be modified except by a new written contract), we don't know that. He obviously has no grounds to stand on for suing for a breach of contract in a court of law though, never meant to imply he did nor am I trying to be some sort of expert (the talk of the players union wasn't for legal action but because they love to step in for disputes involving players and teams all the time). I have enough law studies to know in the real world verbal contracts are basically worthless even if there are laws to make them not that way (I studied business law for a while but am not actively studying it thus things likely changed)
I am also saying in the grand scheme of things the law on verbal contracts don't matter at all, he isn't trying to pursue a legal route (nor was I implying that he should), but if I am a player for the white sox I am starting to think about running away from the team at the first chance I get over this if they don't change things. Just like I would never sign for the marlins after what they did to Mark Buehrle.
edit:
there we go.
The players union is looking into it and might file a grievance (and other details) I guess they are still waiting for more facts before they fully back him, but like I said I was surprised they weren't involved yet since they like being there whenever there is a dispute whether it's a legal dispute or not
anyways moving onto a new topic
Casey Weathers hits 108 on radar gun
